In the
checkered history of the old SomaliRepublic (July 1960-June 1991), two facts need not be
forgotten: Somaliland created that Republic and Somaliland
brought it to an end.The former
occasion was indeed euphoric, the latter remains written in indelible
blood.On both occasions, Somaliland was well within its rights. Somaliland's ill-started
dream of a greater Somalia
dates back to the close of the Second World War. As that famous and fateful
wind of change began to sweep across Africa, the people of Somaliland found
themselves consumed by a vision of a Greater Somalia, i.e. the unity of the
five Somali's comprising the British protectorate of Somaliland, ex-Italian
trusteeship territory of Somalia, Eastern Ethiopia, Djibouti and North-East
Kenya.

As the
first Somalia territory to
win outright independence in June 1960, Somaliland
could hardly wait for the independence of the other Somali territories. The
second to gain independence was ex-Italian Somalia on 1st July1960. Somaliland offered them immediate and unconditional
unity.When Somalia
appeared hesitant, Somaliland allowed them to
take the Presidency, Premiership, the majority of seats in the cabinet and the
new Assembly as well as the command of both the army and police. Such
profligacy was to prove portentous.

The
third Somali territory to gain independence was North-East
Kenya in 1961. In a plebiscite held by the British colonial
authority, they voted overwhelmingly to join the SomaliRepublic.
It took two international telephone calls between an Emperor, a President and a
Premier to put paid to the wishes of these Somalis as well as the career of one
British Colonial Secretary. Emperor HaileSelassie of Ethiopia phoned President Kennedy in Washington
who in turn dialed his friend, Prime minister Harold Macmillan in London and
Ian Macleod, the then British Colonial Secretary who countermanded, and
resigned. Somaliland's dream of a Greater
Somalia suffered its first external blast.

The
fourth Somali territory to achieve statehood was Djibouti in 1977. Djibouti had a good look at the by now
dysfunctional unity of the SomaliRepublic and declined to
join it. The fifth attempt towards a greater Somalia
came in 1977-78 when the Somali dictator, Mohamed SiadBarre, decided to take Eastern
Ethiopia by force and invaded that country. That, too, proved to
be a failure. With Somaliland's original vision of a Greater Somalia,
geopolitically in tatters, the inner workings of the merger of the ex-Italian Somalia was
itself to prove another misadventure. The naivety of the political leaders of Somaliland in allowing the Southerners to occupy almost
all the high offices of state inevitably resulted in a political takeover
rather than a merger of equals. Soon, Somaliland
was treated as an administered province and later as an occupied territory.
Thus, Somaliland's grand dream of Somali unity
was sunk by the twin currents of external geopolitical offensive re-enforced by
the cold war and an internal breakdown of political equity.

THE
DIPLOMATIC RECOGNITION OF SOMALILAND

The
refusal thus far by the international community to recognize the newly reborn Republic of Somaliland is based on a) disreputable
politics, and b) a false representation of international law.

THE
CASE AGAINST RECOGNITION

Firstly,
the disreputable politics is no secret that many countries in Africa
and the Arab World have an inordinate fear of themselves breaking up into
separate states. Anyone and anything redolent of secession drives them berserk;
they automatically blackball any state remotely resembling a secessionist in
case it sets up a precedent. This deep
fear is now being played upon by a number of countries with various axes to
grind in the Somali affair. Some African and Arab countries do not see a strong
Ethiopia
as being in their interest.They are
beholden to the 19th century theory of the balance of the power of states and
are obsessed with a united, powerful Somalia providing a deterrent to
unbridled Ethiopian options. Even little Djibouti
is frantic in its anti-Somaliland campaign under the smoke screen of its
so-called Somalia
reconciliation conference. Djibouti
cannot put up with the prospect of a recognized prosperous Somaliland.
They are desperately trying to prevent this from happening by asking the
international community to push Somaliland back into the quagmire that is in Mogadishu.

Secondly,
false application of international law is evident. Countries with such suspect
political motives advance two arguments against Somaliland in terms of
international law - unacceptable secession and the inviolability of the borders
inherited from colonial rule i.e. inherited territorial integrity. Blinded by
unprincipled political motives, these countries forget that neither the concept
of secession nor the notion of the inviolability of the colonial boundaries
applies in the case of Somaliland.

THE
CASE FOR RECOGNITION

The
concepts of territorial integrity and secession are two sides of a cumbersome
legal-cum-political coin. First, you have to be integral to a thing before you
can be accused of seceding from it. Somaliland, simply, has never been an
integral province of ex-Italian Somalia.
Somaliland has been a separate state within
its own internationally recognized boundaries before, during and after the
colonial period.Prior to the European
colonial stage, Somaliland was aligned with the Ottoman
Empire regime. During the European colonial era, the country was
known as the British Protectorate of Somaliland.

Upon
independence, on 26th June 1960, the country was recognized as the sovereign
state of Somaliland. Hence, the current use of
the name Somaliland intended to allude to its
earlier separate identity. The reason why Somaliland could not be accused of
being a secessionist state is because Somaliland had never been part and parcel
of ex-Italian Somalia.For example, Katanga
was part and parcel of the Congo
during and after the colonial age.Biafra was part and parcel of Nigeria during and after the
colonial period. Somaliland on the contrary,
was a separate state before, during or immediately after colonial rule. How
could they be dragged together into a binding common territorial integrity? The
notion is absurd. Without territorial integrity in place, the question of
secession does not arise. You have to have something that is wholly integrated
first, before you can complain of a part of it breaking away at a later stage.
The present boundaries of Somaliland are the same as on Independence Day, 26th
June 1960, therefore, the restoration of the sovereign and statehood of Somaliland is neither in contravention of the Organization
of African Unity (OAU) policy of adherence to colonial boundaries, nor is it
contrary to any territorial integrity of any relevance.

The
relevant precedent for the restoration of the sovereignty and independence of
Somaliland is the temporary merger of Syria
and Egypt
in the sixties. Here, as in the case of Somaliland and Somalia, two
sovereign and independent countries decided voluntarily to merge and form a
united state with a new name. However, their unity proved unworkable and the
two original states re-emerged. Exactly the same thing happened in the case of
Somaliland and Somalia.
Only in this case, it took a bloody civil war to revert to the status ante.

The
unity of Somaliland and Somalia
had other major faults. The act of union was never ratified by a joint session
of the two legislative assemblies. With the folly of unconditional unity soon
apparent to the people of Somaliland, young
military officers in the North attempted a coup d'etat
the following year. In their subsequent trial, the court acquitted all the
officers precisely because of the lack of an act of union joining the two
Somali states and because of an oath of allegiance to the new united Republic of Somalia. The same year, a draft
constitution of the new SomaliRepublic was put to a
referendum in both states. The people of Somaliland
rejected the draft constitution by a No vote of the large majority. But the
constitution was adopted and implemented apparently legitimized solely by
southern approval.

The
concept of the self-determination of nations, put to such powerful effect in
the ex-Soviet Union and ex-Yugoslavia, is
indirectly relevant. Self-determination is normally directly applicable in a
colonial setting or in a situation where there is valid territorial integrity but
a province still wants to secede. The Somaliland
case is neither.Nevertheless, the
express wishes of the people of Somaliland
would have to command respect. Once they decided to restore their sovereignty
and independence, that decision precludes anybody else's say in their destiny.
The people of Somaliland exercised their right
under international law to rebel against a government guilty of exceptionally
hideous violations of human rights. The United Nations office on genocide and
ethnic cleansing expressed its recognition of the massacre of the population of
Somaliland by the old Somalia
regime. Therefore, the people of Somaliland
are entitled under international law to exercise, inter-alia, their right to determine their destiny. The political
reality of the current separation of Somaliland and Somalia
and the bitter experience of the decade long national liberation struggle by
the population of Somaliland against the totalitarian regime of Somalia clearly
rule out any immediate resumption of the unity just demolished.The intensity of the war of liberation was
such that it left no single family in Somaliland
unscathed at the height of the cold war.

The
Somali National Movement (SNM) set out to challenge the strongest military
force in black Africa and won this decade long
national liberation struggle.It has had
two major abiding effects on the population of Somaliland: bitterness against
the brutality of Somalia's
oppression and overwhelming national confidence engendered by the people's
victory over such incredible odds. The masses in Somaliland are not in the mood
to allow anyone else to stand in their way, let alone little Djibouti.

WAY
OUT OF THE PREDICAMENT

According
to the 1933 Montevideo
convention's classic definition of a state with regard to recognition, a state
should possess a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and
capacity to enter into relations with other states. Somaliland
obviously possesses these qualifications. Once a state satisfies such criteria
of statehood, as Somaliland clearly does,
there is no question in law that it becomes a subject of international
law.Therefore, it is incumbent on the
international community to proceed with the full diplomatic recognition of Somaliland without further delay. Somaliland,
on its part, should prepare to hold a plebiscite on the question of the
restoration of national sovereignty and independence. The international
community would be invited to witness that the referendum is held in a free and
fair manner. The result of this plebiscite should be recognized as settling the
matter. SNM believes this will result in a resounding national vote in favor of
the restoration of sovereignty and independence, Insha
Allah. Once Somaliland attains the full
diplomatic recognition it deserves, SNM proposes a further step. We recommend
to the countries of the Horn of Africa to set up a regional economic
cooperation leading to ever-closer political cooperation, along the lines of
the European common market and European Union. We believe this will lead to
regional economic development and to political harmony not just amongst the
Somalis but also for the people of the region as a whole.